November 13, 2021

Arewa States’ unilateral adoption of Sharia law is self-determination

Up until a decade ago, a form of Sharia law operated as an integral part of Nigeria’s Customary law family. In 1999/2001, legislatures of the 12 Arewa States of Northern Nigeria (Zamfara, Kano, Sokoto, Katsina, Bauchi, Borno, Jigawa, Kebbi, Yobe, Kaduna, Niger, and Gombe) made new laws to extend the provisions of the Sharia law in their contiguous domains (ie Hausaland) to include criminal law. The Arewa legislatures also established a dedicated Hisbah militia to enforce and police their ‘extended’ Sharia. Indeed, in some instances, such as the confiscation of alcoholic beverages, the Hisbah militia had the power to enforce the Sharia doctrine without a court order. States do have certain legislative freedom in Nigeria. Section 4(7) of the 1999 Constitution says: ‘The House of Assembly of a State shall have the power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the State or any part thereof with respect to the following matters, that is to say:- (a) any matter not included in the Exclusive Legislative List set out in Part I of the Second Schedule to this Constitution…and (c) any other matter with respect to which it is empowered to make laws in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.’
Also, Section 275 of the Constitution permits states to establish a State Sharia Court of Appeal if they so desired. However, state legislative freedom does not extend to criminal law. Sections 262 and 272 of the 1999 Constitution are quite explicit. The Sharia law jurisdiction in Nigeria is the same as the Customary law jurisdiction. It is limited to personal law (Islamic), such as marriage, inheritance, probate, and guardianship. The potential for state law to extend the jurisdiction of Sharia law is restricted to civil proceedings involving questions of personal law only. Extension of Sharia law to include criminal law requires a constitutional amendment. The enabling Section 9(2) of the constitution says that two-thirds of the votes in the National Assembly, and the endorsement of two-thirds of the 36 states of Nigeria were needed. This has not happened. In other words, the extension of the Sharia law by the Arewa States to include criminal law is unconstitutional. Yet, the Arewa States have operated the ‘extended’ Sharia unchallenged for over 10 years. There is no indication that the Arewa States intend ever to stop operating the ‘extended’ Sharia. The unilateral declaration, and the practice, of an ‘extended’ Sharia in the Arewa States, has exposed the aims and intent of the Arewa States and the connivance of the Nigerian state. First, the Arewa States rejected Nigeria’s secular status. The Arewa States converted a customary law into religious law, and by so doing ignored Section 10 of the 1999 constitution, which says: ‘the Government of the Federation or of a State shall not adopt any religion as State Religion.’
Second, the Arewa States rejected the supremacy of the Nigerian constitution. Their ‘extended’ Sharia disavowed Section 10, and by so doing ignored Section 1 of the 1999 Constitution which says: ‘(1) This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on the authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria… (3) If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.’ Third, the Arewa States rejected Nigeria’s sovereignty as being the sole sovereignty in Nigeria. Enactment and practice of the ‘extended’ Sharia invested the Arewa States with separate sovereignty from the other 24 states of Nigeria, and by so doing ignored Section 2(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which says: ‘Nigeria is one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign state...’
Fourth, the Arewa States by their unilateral declaration on Sharia determined for themselves their own future political status. This is self-determination. The Nigeria government chose, as a deliberate act, not to oppose this self-determination by the Arewa States. Importantly, the Nigerian army/police did not invade the Arewa States, and Nigeria did not impose any sanctions. This means that Nigeria accepted, notwithstanding the 1999 Constitution, that the Arewa States were entitled to self-determination. It follows that neither Nigeria nor anyone else can now argue that the other 24 states are not entitled to their own self-determination whatever that might be.
Fifth, the Arewa States did not conduct a referendum for their Sharia self-determination.
Further, the Arewa States neither consulted nor sought the blessing of Nigeria, their parent country before their self-determination. The Arewa State legislatures simply determined what was good for their people, and got on with it. Nigeria did not object. It follows that neither Nigeria nor anyone else can now demand that the other 24 states must dialogue with Nigeria or have referenda before their own self-determination.
What is good for the Arewa States (Hausaland or the putative Arewa Islamic Republic) is also good for Yorubaland, Biafra, and Middlebelt.
Blogger Tips and TricksLatest Tips And TricksBlogger Tricks